ELTE BTK ANGLISZTIKA

British and American Political Systems

Lecture sketch for the exam

This sketch tries to cover the content of the whole lecture series, presented by Mr. Miklós Lojkó, senior lecturer, DES, ELTE BTK. It contains my own drafts besides contents from the internet and 1 or 2 books. Please pay attention on the fact that the content (and the grammar :D) of this book can be

questioned.

The United Kingdom

Introductory

I. The branches of power: (by Montesquieu) There are 3 branches of power: Executive (Végrehajtó), Judiciary (Bíráskodó) and Legislature (Törvényhozó). According to HIM, the branches of power are separated in order not to be influenced by each other, however it differs in the Anglo-Saxon Law, because England did not accept this kind of governing structure, whereas the USA uses it. USA type GB type The constitution of America is artificial, that is, strict and almost impossible to be changed, while GB has NO LITERALY CONSTITUTION, the system of law in Britain consists of different kinds of "lawcolloections". (Constitution in its original context didn't include the book of law, "going for a walk").

II. The British system of law: The law in England was rather formed "by accidents in history" than by man. The most important thing about British Law, that they DON'T HAVE AN EXACT CONSTITUTION, they have an UNCODIFIED system, what includes debates, works of authors about laws and even TV programs too. The GB System of Law consists of 7 categories in which the laws are presented. The British CONSTITUTION has 3 overwhelmingly-true features: it is indistinct, indeterminate, and unentrentched (means smth like that it is well beyond being strict).

1. Statute laws: (Alalptörvények) These kind of laws are usually passed by the parliament, what holds debates about an issue, but regimes might impose a DECREE (rendelet), a non-parlamental statute. In England, no law is valid until the monarch itself signed it ("the king/queen wants it"). An example of this section is the Bill of Rights (Jognyilatkozat) in 1689.

E J

L

E J

L

a) as statutes are discussed by the parliament, some words should be spared for the institute of politics in Britain, but just in general. The British parliament has 2 houses the House of Lords and the House of Commons (that is why it is called the "houses of parliament"). In the kingdom, the power is being wielded in a much different way Europeans got accustomed to. The system itself is lying in 2 pillars, both with a different role.

dignified (tisztelt)

efficient (hasznos)

monarchy

PARLIAMENT cabinet

Prime minister

Respect is important instead of efficiency

Deals with "useful" and effective acts and happenings

There is an "only dignified" branch of power (the queen) which has little to do with real laws and politics (especially, as she must not deal with it officially), and there is side, which deals with problems of the country, politics, laws etc. BUT! What gives the country a kind of uniqueness is the phenomenon, that real power wielders have to co-operate with the monarch in order to make their law (or something else) valid, that is, to be accepted by people. There are some other examples for statutes: Act(s) of settlements (unification of Scotland and England in 1707), then the Parliament Act (1832, 1867, 1884 and 1911 about the right to vote and being voted), Alien Act (1905, about foreigner-policy, where bona fide, that is good faith was the Latin term used for those foreign people, who were regarded to be "confidential" enough to live in Britain.

2. Common law: (Magán v. polgári jog) This category includes everyday practices, customs etc. so, it is NOT A WRITTEN-DOWN LAW, but accepted as to be so. (GB vs. EU) Because of this, the British system of law is extremely flexible, but it was more about it, as until 3 years ago, it incorporated spoken or customary law too, where spoken agreement were taken for granted.

3. Non-statutory Written Documents: These are those written-down laws, which do not belong to the 1st part, but they are otherwisely important. They include different kinds of bindings and restrictions, because (on the contrary to the Hungarian-Latin law) EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED UNLESS THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REGARDED AS ILLEGAL BY WRITING. A typical example of this is the Magna Charta Libertatum.

4. Judgements in courts-Case law (Bírósági Gyakorlat)-Obiter Dicta: Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. Decisions and acts are based on it, but they are not necessarily followed word by word. Such as Habeas Corpus (in eng: have the

body) in murders. In courts ALWAYS THE PROOF IS IMPORTANT, AND WHEATHER IT WAS LEGALLY GATHERED NOT THE KNOWING OF THE GUILT.

a) the role of the judge: Judges have overwhelming power in the process of jurisdiction (igazságszolgáltatás), as they are "free to choose" any kind of decision, regardless of nearly anything. THE FORMER DECISIONS OF JUDGES ARE ADDED TO THIS SECTION, ND USED AS AN EXAMPLE IN OTHER COURST THEREAFTER.

5. Conventions: (Hagyományon alapuló törvények) Many British constitutional conventions are ancient in origin, though others (like the Salisbury Convention) date from within living memory. Such conventions, which include the duty of the Monarch to act on the advice of his or her ministers, are not formally enforceable in a court of law; rather, they are primarily observed "because of the political difficulties which arise if they are not." 5 types of conventions are being distinguished.

a) fundamental conventions: These conventions are of a top importance, dealing with not everyday-, but "high politics and -governing", for e: the leader of the winning party is being entitled to form a parliament by the monarch ONLY. The monarch has to give this right to the winner, although, in legal terms, nothing prohibits her to give it to someone else, as it is not written anywhere, BUT it is widely accepted from her to do so. Similar conventions: cabinet government, no official title of prime minister (!), supremacy (felsőbbség) of parliament, the parliament cannot "bind" itself for the future (so it can't declare that in any kind of issue, the parliament has no privilege to think a decision over in the future, making it to be different), official "opposition" of the parliament (what is called the "shadow parliament")

b) meso-conventions: The laws included here, are only "partly" important, as they do not usually deal with governing as a working institution, more likely, it makes it "official", or accepted or something else. These are for e: the opening ceremony of the parliament, "ran" by the monarch, or the monarch must not form a political opinion (even not in unofficial matters), cabinet solidarity (which means, that none of the parties should seem to be divided*---> OR SMTH ELSE???:D), subjudice (that is, nobody is allowed to talk about inside-the-party opinions), right to silence in courts, when asked (since Prime Minister Tony Blair, it is regarded as the sign of guilt)

c) semi-conventions: In these conventions, those "rules" are included, which are to preserve different types of "desirable" behaviours, in order to maintain the system as a whole, just like what oil does with the engine. Several conventions here are among the ones, dealing with the monarch/royal family, such as, the monarch has to sign a new law, although, s/he is not obliged to do so by a rule or a law. (otherwise, a commission would be entitled to sign it IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN/KING). Another example of them is in England, there is no referendum (népszavazás), because it can be manipulated easily (2 important ones were held however: EU-membersip, which was accepted, and the changing of the political system, which was cancelled). In addition, the traditionally "noisy" British parliament is regulated somehow by these, like during resignation speeches, nobody SHOULD make attempts to interrupt, but it is not as strong as the previous ones.

A semi-convention was the existence of the title "lord" too, more exactly, nobody, having this title was allowed to BE ELECTED, and since such titles were obligatory inherited, lot of noble families were not allowed to take a part in politics. Then, when the 1923 election-winner Lord Stanley Baldwin (of the conservative party) asked the monarch to elect one of his party member (without the title lord), his highness allowed to the members of the House of Lords, to get rid of their titles, and take part in politics afterwards. But having such a title continually meant no participation in elections

d) infra-conventions: This kind of convention supports controversial CONSTITUTIONAL issues. One of this is the so called "citizen's arrest", what happens the time, when a crime happened and the criminal is taken to custody by a non-official, a civil person. These occasions are rare however, because if the civil person cannot prove the guiltiness of his/her captive, he himself/she herself would be taken to prison (this is called "false arrest") Another infra-convention is the custom of having the elections only in Thursdays, if possible, during the summer, what has long historic traditions, but there is no rule to make in a must.

e) usages, based on ceremonial issues: Sometimes strange traditions connected to ceremonies are included here. For example, the chancellor had to go on to 40 days "exile" before the Budget day (the day, the budget is announced) and after that, in the day, s/he went on a trip with his/her family and the whole "budget team"(and with the media), an arriving to his/her house, s/he showed around a box, announced the budget, then a GLASS OF WHISKY was offered to him/her (since Tony Blair, it is now banished). Another example here, was the custom, that nobody is allowed to turn a back to the monarch, what was banished lately too.

6. Usages: (Megszokáson alapuló trövények) It is a kind of unofficial compilation of laws, where the lawmaking is placed upon the basis of customs: whether people had got used to do something. In these cases, practice can change the commitments, that also contribute to the flexibility. This part includes such "agreements" like it is not accepted from politicians to make any comment on judgements, whereas the media can criticise it as much as it wants.

7. Authors on the constitution: Several works and publications of authors and writers also contributes to the "constitution".

8. EU laws: Since GB joined the EU in 1973, the compilation of law widened with the category of laws, created by the European Union. This is due to a kind of national "reluctance" towards the EU, because of its mostly binding and restricting "unbritish" legislature.

III. Elections: Since 2011 (sorry, but am not sure about the date), elections must take place in every 5 years (fixed-termed parliament), but before, a party announced new election whenever it wanted, so whenever, when its popularity was at the top. 1. The system of first-past-the-pole: It means that (unlike in Hungary), there is only 1

turn, and whoever wins that one, will be the prime minister and can form a government. I doesn't depend on the percentage compared to the whole country, the party gaining the higher number of votes wins, regardless of whether they are a minority compared the whole country or not (anyone can win by 30% for e, because it

doesn't matter, that 70% of the country was voted to another party, as there are almost no coalitions).

IV. The parliament and the governing structure: Since England is CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, everything is done in the name of the current monarch, but the "ruler" is far cry from having real power. Since the Magna Charta (1215), royal powers have been trimmed, and since the Bill of Rights in 1689 (connected to the Glorious Revolution of William of Orange→Orániaia Vilmos), it has changed a lot. Today, the role of the monarch is transferred to the Prime Minister, since the monarch has nothing to do with the parliament. 1. The role of the monarch:

Since the kings and queens of England has no real power, they only attend ceremonial cases like the opening of the parliament. On the other hand, as the all-time monarch is the (honourable) ruler of other countries (so called the dependences), like Canada or Australia, s/he has to power to influence the laws of smaller and weaker parts of the once-great British Commonwealth (like the isles of Fidgi), through the Privy Council (királyi államtanács), esatblished in the 1490s, and used as a "prototype" of the cabinet thereafter.

2. The role of the Houses of Parliament: Although it consists of 2 houses, the Commons and the Lords, the latter has absolutely no, or very little power, so the word "parliament" is generally used for the previous one. It is an omnipotent institution of the executive power, however, it does not stand alone in the everyday work. The so called cabinet has expert employers (called civil servants generally, and their system is Civil Service), who are in charge of the whole system to operate. It is true, that the Prime Minister has quite an important position (having the right of veto for example), but the cabinet itself is the "oil in the machine", so it makes the schedule for the Prime, too. The importance of the cabinet can be seen in the kind of convention, that the Prime must not force his/her will to the civil servant (take Margaret Thatcher as an example, who had to resign because of it), or at war, the cabinet is responsible for dealing with the affaires. After the election day, a list of names is given by the Prime, in which the employers of the Civil Service are presented. Although, in legal terms, everyone can be a civil servant, but as it is rather a stabile position (unlike in many more places like HUN and USA, where the parties have their own civil servants). In fact, the cabinet has the job of working out the point of view of Great Britain about many many cases, since they employ experts from every walk of life (such as "china-experts" etc.), and the mediate between the monarch & prime, or the parliament etc. That is why the cabinet is the key to understand the governing structure of Britain. It has historical importance, too, besides, that its meeting HAS NO OFFICIAL RECORD until 1916, when Prime Minister Lloyd-George CONSTITUTIONALISED it, but till that time, the meeting were completely unofficial. The cabinet is very deeply involved in the executive branch. It has some parts in the judicial system as well. (system: simple court→county court→high court→ supreme court). The cabinet can make decisions in cases where judges has NO POWER, like juvenile delinquency (fiatalkorú bűnözés). There are no clear borders however. The cabinet differs from the government in many aspects, like, while the latter

consists of more than 150-200 members, the previous one is run by only some 25-50 employers. 3. The system of ministries: (take the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an example)

DEPARTMENTS functionaries

They have long historical tradition. These secretaries don't report to the Secretary of State (S of S), but to the Permanent Under-secretary of State (what is under the S of S) Among the departments, there is NO COORDINATION There is the so called Whitehall (road in the City of Westminster, in central London), where every ministries are located. The civil service is so deeply-rooted in the system of governing that it is sometimes called the "unbreakable wall", as it has more than 0,5 million employers. Vocabulary: codify: írásba foglal; decree: rendelet; gazump: szóbeli megegyezésen alapuló

adás/vétel; Habeas Corpus: (from 1679) „it's an Act of the Parliament of England passed during the reign of King Charles II to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, a procedural device to force the courts to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention.”

Landslide elections

Landslide election is the name of the phenomena, when a political party wins an election with such an overwhelming majority, that it is able to change fundamental issues.

I. Mixed government: It is a government, that consists of several particles, the British

government was such an institution around the 18th century, and it was based on 3

principles.

1. Monarchy: (monarchical pr.)

2. Aristocracy: (aristocratic) → House of Lords (entrenched, not elected)

3. Democracy: (democratic) → House of Commons (elected representatives)

There was no democracy in Englnad that time (acc. to some), but an aristocratic

system was operating, until the era of revolutions came (Great French Revolution in

1789 for e.), and the power-wielders started to fear their status (and life). They

decided to broaden the franchise (választójog).

II. Landslide elections: The governing system was based on the principle of "checks and

balances" (sorry, if I misheard it the 1st one, am not sure...) This system provided a kind

of balance against extremism (szélsőéges pol.-i felfogás), in a way that, the 3 principles

mentioned above counterbalanced each other (so, if there was a "shortage" in the side

of the monarch, the aristocracy acted against it for example), and this system was

operating in a regular and moderated basis (no revolution). As revolutions started to

struck all around Euorpe however, the leaders decided to give franchise to more people

in order to aviod a revolution.

1. 1832: (Reform Act) Middle-classes received the right to vote on the basis of property

qualification (vagyoni alapon) (around £50 from any type of icome, that time a great

deal of money), so the number of voter had increased, but still only the minority of

the population was allowed to vote.

2. 1867: (Reform Act II) That time, political opinions was formed in political clubs (like

Tories, Whigs) led by a charismatic leader. These leader realised after some time,

that further chnages had to be made, so the franchise was broadened agian, but this

time, it was exteded to the whole urban working class, increasing extensively the

number of voters (app. 60% of the pop.). The property quality was around £10 in

their case, but thier hostels and residences were taken into account. (Nota bene:

women was not allowed to vote until 1918) However, there was a so called

"bachelor tax", which was imposed to unmarried men, who had the right to vote.

3. 1884: (Reform Act III and Redistribution (of Parliament Seats) Act in 1885)

The franchise was extended to ruler workers ("peasants"), so it had become a

universal right, now the 96% of the pop. had this right. (Exceptions: mentally

disordered people, members of the House of Lords and prisoners.) This act resulted

however in seroious, unexpected consequences, which were called later the landslide

elections.

4. 1905: (general elections) So far, in the realm of English politics, there were strong

oppositions, so none of the sides could wield overwhelming power without any

border, because of the existence of balanced governments. This moderated status

the changed that year.

In 1905, the Liberal Democrat Party (Whig) gained an enormous majority (Liberal

Landslide), so it wiped out the Tories, so the Liberal Democrats could possibly do

ANYTHING they wanted, there was no balance.

a) positive results: The term "welfare state" was put in practice.

sick leave was introduced

state pensions were paid

maternity leave was introduced (but only for 2 days)

b) negative: A sense of class-hatred started to spread

5. 1922: Liberal Democrat majority again

6. 1945: The Labour Landslide (by this time, the Liberal Democrats had almost been

disappeared!

The Labour Party (consisted of trade unions, employees etc.), led by Clement Atlee

("conservative" mentality). It had become the biggest party in the Parliament, so it

could pass on several revolutionary changes, like comprehensive system of

education, developments in healthcare (free) and nationalisation of private industry.

This way, the state had more & more responsibility, so the CONSTITUTION was

changed. There was no balance again (as there was no counterbalance neither from

outside nor from inside the party).

7. 1979: (general elections) By this time, the Labourites,with their strict rules, had

driven GB to poverty, so general changes were required immediately. This time, the

Conservative Party (Tory) won, led by the charismatic Margaret Thatcher (the "Iron

Lady").Thatcher changed England totally. Almost everything was supervised, from

education, economy, entrepreneurship to even use of spoken language. The private

system was restored finally (alienation) where different potential investers had to

compete with each other. Banking and financial status was taken into account as a

major principle.

8. 1997: (general elections) The power of Thatcher had grown so immense, that

eventually she was forced to resign, so without her, the party could not win again.

This time, the Labourite leader Tony Blair led the election list, whose party won more

seats than any party in the history of GB politics ever.

a) 2001 (Terrorism Act): It was a kind of prevention replying to 9/11 in the US (and

also to Northern-Irland terroristic acts comitted by the IRA), so, as a consequece

of these, the CONSTITUTION was rewritten again, but this time, stricter rules

were included than ever (including the abolishment of right to silence in courts,

and from now on, might-be criminals could be held in detension for 60 days

without any accusation).

9. 2010: (general elections) Conservative victory with under the leaderhip of David

Cameron. The phenomenon of landslide elections was abolished by a convention for

ever, so, coalition has to be made since that time, furhermore, confidence has

become very important even inside the party, so if a sepresentative fails to keep

his/her confidence, he/she has to resign. The time of next election has also been

determined (May of 2015) which is unprecedented in GB history. The main goal of

this government is to cope with the economic crisis (huge deficit) so different kind of

payments has been introduced (like the university tuition fee, which triggered nation-

wide public outry).

GB Parliament

I The Parliament: (according to Bagehot from1867)

The UK Parliament consists of 2 Houses, the Lords and the Commons, and both has its

role in the most important responsibility of the Parliament, the law-making, but of

course, the Commons has more power. So, by Parliament, we mostly understand the

part of the Commons. Acc. to Bagehot, the Parliament has 5 important functions:

1 Decision-making: One role of the House is to decide whether someone can become

the member of the cabinet or not (although, it is very rarely changes its members)

a) electoral chamber: This is the place, where the electors are situated, voting and

debating takes place here, too. There is a title so called "The Father of the House"

(kb. házelnök), who usually has the longest membership in the Commons ("a

politician never retires"). S/he is only responsible for supervising the process of

debates, votes etc and s/he is chosen by a vote of confidence.

2 Expressive function: The Parliament gives voice to the opinions of the Members, too.

a) Hansard: Although, the debates and speeches today are recorded by cameras,

the most influential role of informing is placed on parliamentary reviews, and the

"newspaper" being in charge here is the Hansard. In England, reviews are thought

to be so confidential, that only the content of the Hansard what has to be taken

into account, no matter how smth happened in real life, no matter what could be

seen in the TV, if the Hansard states smth, it must be correct. So, that is to say, it

has a kind of "censoring" role, as only the content of it is accepted as official, so

nasty arguments are usually moderated this way.

3 Teaching function: Politicians, who have a long time spent in the Commons ("retired

politicians"), are usually earn respect to themselves by this way to an extent, that

they are constantly being asked to give advice to younger Members of Parliament

(and this way, they educate them by sharing the experiences). Or, they simply make

comments on the actual status of the country (for example: healthcare,

infrastructure, developments etc.). Of course, it is less common than it was before

the era of media (note however, that before 1978, there was no any record! due to

general secrecy)

4 Informing function: (similar to (b))

The Parliament has a kind of informing status to a certain extent, as during the long

long speeches, almost every really relevant piece of news is mentioned from

scientific ones to news from abroad. It is a kind of thing, which keeps the country

together.

5 Legislation: Although law-making is regarded as the utmost important role of the

Parliament, it is only partly true, because a significant amount of things is determined

well before it is announced to hold a debate on it.

a) making a law: The process of law-making is generally accomplished on the basis

of debates and voting. Debates are held several times and the House of Lords is

also included.

b) the process: (with the aid of James O'Driscoll's book: "Britain for learners of

English", but simplified)

bill: First, a proposal is made. Then, a kind of writ is published what explores

the causes of the proposal. In the case of a government paper, it has 2 types:

it can be a Green paper (it explains the ideas and causes behind the proposal)

or it can be a White paper (same as the previous one, but more explicit and

committed). After this, lawyers reword the proposal into a bill. Then, the bill

goes through different stages in the Commons. The leader of the House (the

speaker → government) announces the date of the debate.

First Reading: The MP (Member of the Parliament) reads the long and short

title of the bill (the short one is the formal name, in which it is used in courts

for example → citation, the long one is also formal, but with a short

description of the law). This time, there is no debate.

Second Reading: The Parliament debates only on the principle of the bill, not

the whole bill, then they take a vote ("The House is now divide")

Committee Stage: ("Bill goes upstairs"). In this stage, the Commons debates

the details of the bill and votes on amendments (kiegészítések) Here, there's

an interesting custom. Every representative has to choose between 2 doors

by going through them (one is called the "Aye Lobby" → support, the other is

called "No Lobby" → against the bill)

Report Stage: The House considers the amendments (in fact, representatives

start to debate loudly)

Third Reading: There's a new, amended bill, and it is debated as a whole. Here

the representatives can "make up their mind" about the bill, then it is passed

on to the Lords.

the role of the House of Lords: Here, the bill goes through the same stages (in

fact, this process is really short, takes approximately 10 minutes) and the

Lords debate it. They have 2 options:

(a) send back: They can send it back to the Commons with a request of

change, suggested by them.

(b) dismissal: They can reject it totally (but this case is very rare → last time in

1992, War Crime Bill). However, the Commons is superior since 1911 (no

Lords permission is needed to a bill to become a law)

becoming a law: After a bill is accepted, it is sealed (lepecsételik) with a

special stamp, with a writ on it "the Queen wants it" in Norman French

(Norman korban használt francia) "la reyne le veult".

The territory of Great Britain and their role in politics

I Short history: The UK was once a great empire, with lots of members in the

Commonwealth of England (Angliai Államközösség) (including India, Canada etc.), but

Scotland Wales and Ireland in fact was a part of the UK (by force and conquest). The

whole of Scotland and Ireland (after the revolution of Cromwell) was incorporated

(bekebelez), as well as Wales. In the times of the Commonwealth and the British Empire,

in such a "welfare state" ethnic problems were not as common as they are today. After

the country started to become poorer, the different nations started to rebel against the

English reign. These otherwise ancient nations originates from Celtic ancestors, rooting

in Celtic tradition, therefore, they are commonly referred as the Celtic branch.

II The members of the Celtic Branch:

1 Wales: The Territory of Wales was not intended to be ruled by England in the

beginning (Welsh means "Foreigner" in Old English (Óangol)), but now, it is rule by

the Prince of Wales ( Prince Charles currently), who is a member of the Royal Family,

and officially, England is called England and Wales (among others, since the country

has several "official" names). Despite being the member of the UK, Wales has its own

legislative institution called the Welsh Assembly (National Assembly for Wales), with

elections every 4 years and with 60 members (called AMs, that is, Assembly

Members) responsible for local issues. They have the power to accept laws for Wales

without consulting with the UK Parliament (since 2011).

2 Scotland: Since the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland is a part of the UK. Being one of

the most independent nations of England, Scotland has special privileges.

a) Scottish Parliament: (generally referred to as "Holyrood", since it is situated in

this area of Edinburgh) It has 129 members (called MSPs, Members of the

Scottish Parliament), being elected in every 4 years, and having power to accept

laws on their own, however, the UK Parliament has the right to extend or reduce

the areas in which it can make laws. Westminster (UK Parliament) is continually

debates on issues which might have Scottish relations, but domestic policy (local

law) is made by the MSPs and education, healthcare, agriculture and justice is

under the power of Scottish Parliament.

b) education: It is very different from English education. They have broadened

curricula (that is, they teach a bigger variety of subjects, and because of this, the

first years at Scottish universities consist of 4 years), they have different exams,

and particularly interesting that ancient universities (like the University of

Edinburgh) use the term "Master of Art" for the first degree in humanities.

c) religion: Scotland officially does not belong to the Church of England, instead,

traditional Catholic Christianity is the ruling religion here.

d) different legal system: The legal system of Scotland is based on Roman law,

instead of Anglo-Saxon, so the responsibility of judges is high, because there is no

jury (esküdtszék). Interestingly, a court in Scotland can announce not only 2, but 3

verdicts (ítélet), so besides being "guilty" and "not "guilty", the court might

announce "not proven" which means, that the person is not found guilty, but

he/she is not cleared of guilt, either.

3 Ireland: (Note, that only Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, The Republic of Ireland

itself is an independent country)

a) brief history: The region was not conquered in the Roman era, so it remained so

unknown in Europe, that it was believed to be the place of Purgatory or Hell. In

1154, Henry I decided to colonise Ireland, so he went to Pope Adrian IV (only

English pope in history → Nicolas Breakspeare), who organised a brief crusade to

gain power in the country while 2 Celtic chieftains waged war against each other.

Later, after years of sequential wars, In 1603, English dominance spread to the

country, and in 1801, it became a part of the UK. After a war of independence in

1919, Ireland was separated (in 1921 → Northern and Southern), and Southern

became independent. (1922).

b) Home Rule: (There were 4: in 1886, 1893, 1914, 1920 → Government Act, giving

more and more rights to Ireland) It established officially the Republic of Ireland,

but because of protestant dominancy in the North, this part remained under

English domination. Despite that, the Parliament of Northern Ireland was

established, too.

c) Parliament of Northern Ireland: (simplified "version" since the governing here is

very complicated) The Northern Ireland Assembly is unicameral (egykamarás) It

has 108 members from the 6 ancient counties (called MLAs, Members of the

Legislative Assembly), elected in every 4 years. The Monarch is represented by

the Governor (initially by the Lord Lieutenant "főispán"), who granted Royal

Assent to Acts of Parliament in Northern Ireland, but executive power rested

with the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest party in the House of

Commons. It has the right to accept laws, but in more important issues, the UK

Parliament decides, or at least UK permission is needed.

d) Northern Ireland Executive: The Northern Ireland Executive is the administrative

branch of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the devolved legislature (törvényhozó

testület) for Northern Ireland. It is answerable to the Assembly and was

established according to the terms of the Northern Ireland Act in 1998.

4 Connections between the UK and the Celtic Branch: Officially, Westminster has no

connection with the national parliaments, since it has only loose relationship with

them. Today, this relationship is rather controversial, as, for example, a Scottish-

English referendum (népszavazás) was held this year to create new shapes to the

relations.

a) the West Lothian question: The existence of 2 parliaments in England (1 for whole

GB and 1 only for Scotland) rises much controversy, since what should be the

borders for the previous, and what should be for the latter one. The movement

derives its name from the representative of the constituency (választókerület) of

Lothian, who rose this question for the 1st time. It is mainly about the fact, that

Westminster MPs cannot vote on some issues concerning Scotland (since

education, legal system etc. is under the Scottish parliament), but there are

Westminster MPs from Scotland, who vote on issues, that Scotland has nothing

to do with. Some think, that Westminster should remain only for England (that is,

apart from the Celtic Branch), and all other parliaments should be given more

rights, while according to others, a supreme Great Britain Parliament would be

more advisable to exist, wielding power over the whole UK. The question is not

settled even today.

II

The United States of America

Introduction

I Differences between parliamentary and presidential governing:

These 2 terms are not really separated as in almost every cases, where there is a

parliament, there is a president, too. However, where the

1 Parliamentary: (from wiki)

A parliamentary system is a system of democratic government in which the

ministers of the Executive Branch derive their legitimacy from and are accountable

to a Legislature or parliament; the Executive and Legislative branches are

interconnected. A typical example here is Hungary.

2 Presidency: (from wiki)

A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch is led by

a president who serves as both head of state and head of government. In such a

system, this branch exists separately from the legislature, to which it is not

responsible and which it cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss (The legislature may

retain the right, in extreme cases, to dismiss the executive, often through a process called

impeachment. However, such an intervention is seen as so rare (only two United States presidents

were impeached—charged with misconduct—and neither was convicted) as not to contradict the

central tenet of presidentialism, that in normal circumstances using normal means the legislature

cannot dismiss the executive.). This extent of power a president can wield, however,

differs country by country.

a) weak presidency: The president nearly has any power(like in Ireland), and in

some cases, the president has only ceremonial purposes like the monarch of GB.

b) strong presidency: In countries following this way, the president has almost

absolute power, he/she is literally the "head of the state" (like in France), having

the capability of carrying out entire new issues alone (see Obamacare above).

II Presidency within the confines of the US:

The US is typically a country, where there is strong presidency in practice (too strong,

according to some). Here, the branches of power (legislature, executive, judiciary) are

artificially separated, where legislature is led by the congress, judiciary is led by the

supreme court and the head of executive is the president itself. The importance of the

president in the US dates back to the time of the war of independence.

1 Brief history of the status of the president:

After the great waves of colonialisation, 13 colonies were established, all consisting

of (more or less rich) merchants, sailsmen and farmers. The colonies, however, were

constantly jeopardised by the French colonies, who were stronger in practice than

the US, lacking proper military forces. The make these assaults stop, GB sent huge

number of troops to help out the US which played an important role in the global

market of the British Commonwealth. After subsequent battles, the French was

forced to retreat, but GB spent so much on them, that the government tried to make

the US pay for it (in practice, some % of the US trade income must had been paid to

the GB treasury). The US refused to do this on the principle of "no taxation without

representation", as they did not take part in English parliamentary debates. Because

of this contradiction, GB ceased helping them with the governing structure, and soon,

wartime conditions of the war of independence lead to the establishment of a local

governing structure, led by the president of the US.

III The uniqueness of the US system:

The unique aspect of the US governing system embodies in the phenomenon of the so

called cohabitation. In the US, there are 2 kind of general elections: one for choosing a

president, and one (after 2 years of the previous one) for choosing the members of the

congress. It is not necessary, that after the presidential nominee of one party won, the

same party will be in majority in the congress. (Obama (Dem), for example, had to co-

operate with a Republican congress, but his power was so huge, that he could carry out

the controversial Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) despite the

fiery protest of the congress).

1 Some aspects of the US CONSTITUTION: To get a clearer picture of the system, one

should become familiar with the basics of the US constitution.

a) origin: Although, the whole compilation of laws was created by the Founding

Fathers (like Benjamin Franklin or George Washington), this artificial constitution

is still a kind of descendant of the British and the French ones. There are

similarities between them like, the President is the head of the executive branch

of power.

b) social bargaining: A widely common aspect of GB constitutional practise is also

involved, namely, the fact, that (almost) every individual can influence the

constitutional law. That is to say, different laws are so "briefly" and "freely"

formulated, that they can be argued and can be changed by for example an

unprecedented court trial, where the judge accepts the special status of

someone, despite it is regarded as illegal by the law.

2 Debates about the making of the US:

When the fundamental laws of the country was created, the Founding Fathers held

debates about highly important issues concerning the US. They argued about

whether there should be a strong or a weak presidency, or should their country

placed upon the basis of a federal constitution (so each state has their own rights as

today) or not. These were completely up-to-date questions that time, since the US as

a new-born country wouldn't have centuries history behind it, like most European

countries. There is no ancient or simply old legitimacy there even today, because,

say, the US was born from an idea (it is said to be the "freedom"). Protestant

ideology also took part in the concept of the Founding Fathers and it is still present in

present day US as a kind of "missionary attitude" towards homeland: that is the

cause why the law prohibits dishonouring the national flag, for example.

IV The special status of US judges: (please note that this is a rather schematic figure!!!)

The US (as the GB) system of jurisdiction is based in the application of jury (esküdtszék).

Although, they vote, they proclaim the verdict and the judge seem to be in charge of the

legal and "fair" procedure of the whole trial (as the decide what is acceptable and what is

not), but in fact the judge has very influential power over the court trial. He/she can

proclaim another verdict, which might be totally the opposite of the decision of the jury.

This is not quite often happens, but not impossible. In theory, the jurors investigates the

question of fact and proofs (whether the accusation was well established with proofs or

not), while the judge investigates the question of law. So, the judge is the official, who

knows the methods of the law, of course, they are not allowed to propose an entirely

false verdict, without any support.

1 Very brief history of the system: The strange phenomenon dates back to Napoleonic

times. The emperor prohibited the judges to make general announcements (so to

create laws on their own), and ordered them to follow the so called Code Civil or

Code Napoleon (the compilation of laws made by Napoleon) only. This system was

adopted to the so called Philadelphia Convention (1787), where it was modified*, so

the judiciary system today is not separated in practice from legislation, a judge can

propose an established, but different verdict is he/she adjudge the situation

differently.

2 Articles of confederation: (from wiki)

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual

Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United

States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first

constitution. Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an

approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal

ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified,

the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental

Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe

and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the weak

government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists.

On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution. The new

Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief

executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.

V The 13 colonies: (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut,

Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North

Carolina, and Rhode Island)They were mostly of non-English origin in their names. A lot

of them was a kind of inheritance of GB (like Georgia → King George III or most notably,

Virginia → Elisabeth III ("the virgin queen"). Another origin was the name of English

settlements like New Jersey), or there were Native words, too, like Connecticut.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont 1is

usually referred to as "New England".

1 Opposition between North and South: N and S was so different (in their inhabitants

in their interests and so on), that almost no sooner the War of Independence was

over, a new kind of opposition started to shape between the 2 areas.

a) the federalist North: The majority of the population here consisted of rich upper-

middle-, or middleclass land-owners, who wanted a country of clear and strong

governing, where they would lead. The North was led by most notably George

Washington and Benjamin Franklin.

b) the anti-federalist South: They consisted of rather poor farmer, who came from

different part of the world, escaping from the strict rules and regulations of their

home countries to exploit the opportunities of America (like slavery or large

fields). Of course, they were against the idea of a strong (rather centralised)

government. They didn't want another "nobility", as it is commonly said, they

wanted to remain independent. Here, most people earned their livings from

exploiting slavery in sugar-and-cotton plantations. This side was led by Patrick

Henry and Tom Paine.

c) the Civil War: (1861–1865) The opposition were so huge that they led to a war

inside the country. The long and bloody war, which is probably the most cruel

example in the history of warfare, finished with the victory of the North,

abolishing the slavery (in theory) from the territory of the US.

2 The Philadelphia Convention (1787): After the war, people (in both sides) realised the

fact that they have literally no governing system, so 55 brave men started to make

one up.

1 It joined later, wasn't a part of the 13 colonies

a) original colonies: Local arrangements, local issues (like marriages or punishment)

were settled locally, based on Native-American conventions, but the system did

not work properly. The US even did not have a capital city (Washington DC later).

b) the Founding Fathers: These 55 men were not representatives or any other

officials, they just started to think of dissolving the chaos of those years. They

examined the existing governing systems in total secrecy, while nobody entitled

them to do so. They gathered together in Philadelphia, where 7 states

represented themselves. They figured out the entire system debating constantly,

so the CONSTITUTION shows this "style of formal agreements". However, it

formulates an 18 c. idea of democracy, which is unlike today's. This is the cause,

why there is so many amendments (kiegészítések) in it, as people are reluctant to

re-write it.

c) The US CONSTITUTION: The 1st article of it deals with the bi-cameral

(kétkamarás) parliamentary system of the US. They are based on the principle of

"checks and balances", were the emphasis is put on balance and the separation

of the houses.

Senate: (the upper house) Each state delegates 2 representatives for 6 years,

100 seats altogether; no real elections by the people, delegates are appointed

on the basis of respect and social "reputation".

House of Representatives: 435 seats, elections in every 2 years which causes a

sense of insecurity

This institution has more power than the previous one. Elections are led by

the principle of " Plurality voting system" → 1st wins

electoral boundaries: Districts for elections do not correspond to real borders,

that's why it is easier to cheat (Gerrymandering → from Gerry Mander's

name, it is the process of creating artificial boundaries in a way to make a

certain representative win → black Americans in majority but represented by

white men bc of this cheating).

general elections: In every 4 years

d) US Bill of Rights: In GB, the Bill regulated the issues concerning the connection of

the monarch, the cabinet and the rather centralised government, so in the US,

people wanted an individual B of Rs.

VI US Presidential power:

1 A comparison: As the lecture is based on as comparison between the GB and the US

system, this category will present the US way, while devoting some words to the GB

parallel, too.

a) Presidency: The US President has overwhelming power over the cabinet and

other particular parts of governing (like legislation etc.), thus, a US President

cannot be "terrified" with any kind of act. Unlike in GB, where there are so called

"PM Qs", Prime Minister Questions, when the whole House of Commons

bombards him/her with questions, who must answer it immediately and with

great precision. Such thing is impossible in the US.

2 Powers given to the US President:

a) criteria: There are some requirements of being a US president, stated in the

CONSTITUTION. Someone, who wants to nominate him/herself to this position

must live in the US for at least 14 years from the time of nomination (but

strongly should be a native-born), must be at least 35 years old, and must be a

US citizen.

b) 3 types of things affect strongly the power a P can wield:

CONSTITUTION: A US P has several rights stated in the CONS.

s/he has to "take care" of the laws, as the ultimate leader of the executive

branch of power. However, the CONS never says whether s/he has the

power to create laws or not, but a P can (kind of convention, unlike in GB)

the US P is the commander-in-chief of the military forces if the country is

at war, however, s/he is unable to declare war without the permission of

the Congress. S/he can answer to an ambush solely, but can only continue

waging war with the permission. In, GB the monarch has the power to

declare war on the basis of his/her discretionary powers2 on the basis of

national consensus.

The P has to right to recall any member of the Senate or the House of

Representatives (although it has never happened in the US history), while

a GB P cannot do such thing

the P has a right to veto (to dismiss a potential law) in legislature. The

Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives together) can re-

veto the Ps veto, however to do this, 2/3 majority is needed in both

House and Senate (so it's pretty rare). Such things never happen in GB

where "the time decides" whether something is CONSTITUTIONAL or not.

If such a question would arise in the US however, only the Supreme Court

can decide about its validity.

a president him/herself can sign an act, unlike in GB, where the

Parliament debates on it

has the power of making treaties with foreign independent powers3

can grant pardons (kegyelem) to individuals, who committed a felony (a

major crime; not used in GB but used frequently in the US), although it

2 In a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government, a reserve (or discretionary) power is a power

that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government. Unlike in a presidential system of government, the head of state is generally constrained by the cabinet or the legislature in a parliamentary system, and most reserve powers are usable only in certain exceptional circumstances. 3 Around the mid 1800s, when this law was passed, there were few so called individual powere that does not

belong to either of the Empires, like the Brittish Commonwealth etc.

rarely happens. This procedure is impossible in GB, where only judiciary

can decide about a verdict

extension of CONS: Since the US was a poor country in the 1800s becoming a

welfare state only in the 1900s, the powers of the P had to be changed. In the

US, however, the original wording of the CONS must be conserved, so the

extend it every time when it is needed.

inherent powers: In the US, the President has sovereign powers, deriving

from the loosely-worded statement of the CONS: "the executive Power

shall be vested in a President". This embodies in the so called presidential

orders. This originates from the time of the Civil War, where President

Lincoln had to decide immediately about waging war with the South, so

he arbitrarily extended the expenditure of military forces. This is the case

with a so called preventive war, too, when a country attacks another state

to prevent the ambush of it. The Congress can explicitly delegate this

power to the P in serious cases.

(i) New Deal: (1933-1936) Roosevelt was given the right to inject serious

sums of money in the US economy to reduce extreme unemployment.

He established the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) in which he

started having huge dams built, giving work to hundreds of thousands.

(ii) Nixon: He was given the power to freeze the wages and the prices .

In GB, a President can do it, too, but it happens very rarely. It is

regulated by the Privy (Royal Court of Justice), resorting to an Order in

Council4.

the War Powers Resolution: (1973) It is a federal law intended to check

the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict

without the consent of Congress. It was established after 2 notorious

incidents, happening abroad.

(i) Bay of Pigs Invasion: In 1961, in Cuba led by Dictator Fidel Castro, the

CIA organised a well-formed plan how to send special military forces

to capture (or kill) Castro. It finished with an ultimate failure however,

as no sooner the troops landed, they were captured and arrested by

the Cubans.

(ii) Gulf of Tonkin: In 1964 in Vietnam, the French were forced to leave

the country to give opportunity to local governing, however, it

immediately became the target of 2 superpowers: the Soviet Union

and the US. In order to prevent Soviet lead, the US sent a battleship to

4 A representative of the government (generally a cabinet minister or the Lord President of the Council) reads

out batches of Orders in Council drafted by the government in front of the Queen, who, after every couple of orders, says 'Approved'. They then pass into law, and come into effect. However several instances have been recorded where a governor has questioned the technical basis of a proposed regulation, refused assent, and the order has been returned to the relevant department for revision. To see more go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_in_Council

attack 2 North-Vietnamese battleships without caution. These ships

sank, but opposing the facts, the US government stated that the

Vietnamese started the ambush so the US declared a war. Later, it

was revealed and it caused enormous public outcry.

popular appeal: In the US, the power is greatly affected by how popular is the

person of the current president, as the P wins not as a member of a party,

but an individual candidate (unlike in GB, where parties take part in

elections). In the US, people elect directly the president, so this way, even the

Congress can be put into the shade (háttérbe szorít) to some extent. This

overwhelming effect is immensely affected by the so called State of the Union

addresses. They are such occasions, when the P directly fives speeches to the

people via the TV (this is however a GB CONS issue, adopted to the US later)

McCarthyism: (mccarthyzmus) This effect is more easy to understand by

presenting an example. Senator Joseph McCarthy accused many

politicians of being "communist spies". He gave precise names and by

doing this, he not only destroyed political careers, but made many people

to commit suicide. It was highly ridiculous, as later most of the accused

people were proved to be innocent (hence the ironic name). The public

was waiting for presidential comment on this, but the current President,

Eisenhower was reluctant to do so, so he became so unpopular that he

had to resign.

VII US Legal branch and judiciary: (in comparison to the British one) The US legal system is

mostly supervised by the Supreme Court, but judges have the right to make a judgement

based on their own opinion (regardless of the opinion of the jury albeit, there's an

enormous pressure on judges to obey the decision of it). Hence the origin of some

"famous" court cases, which later became precedents and as a result of this, a part of the

CONSTITUTION. As in the US, the content of the CONS is too "sacred" to be revised, new

laws come into being in the form of amendments. The first 10 amendments are called

the Bill of Rights

1 A more famous amendment and 2 famous cases:

a) Right to bear arms: (2nd amendment) It states the right of the people to keep

and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the

Bill of Rights.

b) Dred Scott v. Sandford: (1857) A Supreme Court decision, which has become a

milestone in the history of US slavery. The story in short is the following: Mr.

Scott, of African origin, turned to the court with his plea to "liberate" him from

his slavery, binding him to the brother of his master's wife. (In fact, during the

travels, Mr. Scott married to a non-slave Afro-American woman, and had a non-

slave child; with his master, they stayed in State Louisiana , which granted

liberation for those, who stayed in the state for some time). Later, this plea was

refused on the basis of "the lack of proofs of his slavery" (technicalities), and the

Supreme Court declared that the federal government had no power to regulate

slavery in the territories, and that people of African descent (both slave and

free) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens.

c) Roe v. Wade: (1973) It deals with the issue of abortion, whether women have the

right to cease pregnancy and if so, on what basis. The controversial issue finally

became a law, declaring abortion a right of women but only after strict scrutiny

(alapos, részletes vizsgálat) and only on the basis of rape. Another important

issue is the viability of the foetus.

2 The GB legal system in short:

a) common law: (here only common law is stated, as it is more close to the US legal

system) 2 meanings (old and modern → made by judges)

Judges can make laws (which is rather controversial in GB, since there's no

Supreme Court to supervise this procedure). A good example of it is the right to

silence, which prohibits the jury to adjudge the defendant negatively on the basis

of his/her silence when asked. (Since then, Thatcher challenged this argument, so

sometimes, under different conditions, it is regarded to be a sign of guilt →

controversial!!!)

obiter dicta: the comments of judges on laws (plural of obiter dictum)

these laws are still tried and revised

laws made by the Parliament are regarded "stronger"

1919: equity (jogosság) On the basis of a law called loitery without intend,

(szándék nélküli "bámészkodás") people, regarded not a "bona fide" (reliable

person) was transported to Australia (which was a prison island that time), for

even frivolous crimes, like stealing a chicken. This law was so extremist that

the Lord Chancellor (főkancellár) of the GB government was given the right to

supervise these decisions in a Court Chancellery, investigating mistreatments

of common law.

magistrates' court: "A magistrates' court or court of petty sessions, formerly

known as a police court, is the lowest level of court in England and Wales and

many other common law jurisdictions. A magistrates' court is presided over

by a tribunal consisting of three justices of the peace (also known as

magistrates) or by a district judge (formerly known as a stipendiary

magistrate), and dispenses summary justice, under powers usually defined by

statute. The tribunal presiding over the Court is commonly referred to simply

as the Bench." (from wiki) The magistrates are always "available", so the

defendant do not have to be put to prison until the date of a trial. They do not

have to be trained lawyers.

House of Lords: In 2009, the "12 Law Lords" (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary)

moved to a new building from the House of Lords called the Supreme Court of

the United Kingdom. Since that time, the House of Lords lost its (very limited)

power in law-making.

"system of lawyers": In GB, there are 2 kinds of lawyers: the so called

solicitors and the barristers. The solicitors (commonly referred to as

"lawyers") are dealing with the defendant in person (responsible for

paperwork etc.), while the barrister deals with legal procedures in courts

(solicitors do not participate here). These 2 branches are so different that a

solicitor e.g. cannot become a barrister without getting another, completely

different university degree on law (usually, barristers are considered more

educated and more valued, than solicitors).

3 The US system: Federal Court System

In a federal court system, every state has its own court system and in the US, there

are country courts, too. Apart from these, there are other levels of courts in the same

time.

a) district courts: "The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the

United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the

district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United

States bankruptcy court associated with each United States district court. Each

federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and many districts have more

than one. The formal name of a district court is "the United States District Court

for" the name of the district—for example, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri." (from wiki). The judges here do not have to be

trained lawyers (?) and at these courts, "the burden of proof" is on the

prosecution. Very important that the whole procedure must be carried out

correctly, unless the defendant cannot be sentenced.

b) circuit courts: "The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts → vidéki

tárgyalásra kiszálló bíróság) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United

States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district

courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other

designated federal courts and administrative agencies. The United States Courts

of Appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the

United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover

millions of people, the United States Courts of Appeals have strong policy

influence on U.S. law; however, this political recognition is controversial.

Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to hear fewer than 100 of

the more than 10,000 cases filed with it annually, the United States Courts of

Appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases" (from wiki).

There are 12 courts, which are regionally distributed. (11 + D.C. , stands for

Washington)

SUMMARY I The US:

(Mostly from Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America) He was a Frenchmen, responsible for

reporting to the French Parliament about the US situation in the 19th century. He analysed the

current status of the country, pointing out the drawbacks and the advantages.

1 His general opinion: He formulates a general opinion about the US during his travels. He that

in the US, there is:

a) Equality of rights: The rights are extended to women, too, however, slavery is accepted

and slaves are excluded from human rights.

b) "Manifest destiny": (from wiki)

Manifest destiny was the belief widely held by Americans in the 19th century that the

United States was destined to expand across the continent. This concept, born out of "A

sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example generated by the

potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". The phrase itself meant many

different things to many different people. The unity of the definitions ended at

"expansion, prearranged by Heaven". Mid-19th-century politicians would use it to

explain the need for expansion beyond the Louisiana Territory. Manifest destiny

provided the dogma and tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory.

c) Lack of democracy: He found that in the US, people only feel that they only live in a

democratic country.

representative democracy and government: In the US, those who have the right to

vote, can only vote to representatives, who represent them in certain situations,

opposing to direct democracy, where people can vote directly on the questions they

are concerned.

"despotism of public opinion": Every person, who want to be elected behave in the

way they think it's the most popular. According to T, people are likely the one, whose

popularity is the highest, not the person who is capable of "leading" the country.

Mostly, it's the trend of uneducated people.

tyranny of the majority: It happens, when a politician is supported by the vast

majority of the Senate. In this case, the majority can abuse the democracy, deceiving

the electors with propaganda speeches. On the other hand, when the sides are

balanced, long and never-to-end speeches can confuse the people, concentrating on

persuasion, rather the factuality. This weakens the democracy.

violence of party spirit: "Party-politicians" are weak in France, that is why T thinks

that strong "party-politicizing", which is typical in the US and in GB is rather harmful

to democracy. Politicians here are ruthless and the phenomena of uncivilised political

speeches is usual.

II The UK: (mostly from Vernon Bogdanor)

1 GB parliament: Although, the GB Parliament (the House of Commons) enjoys absolute

superiority in legislature in theory, there are major limitations in practice. (BE CAREFUL:

POTENTIAL EXAM QUESTIONS!!!)

a) minority issues: (connected to territorial validity)There are members in the House of

Commons from for example Scotland, who vote in questions concerning England (NOT

Great Britain, only England), but English representatives cannot vote on several Scottish,

Irish and Welsh issues. It oppose the fact that a country should seem powerful, not

divided. This phenomenon raises heated debates (see further: West-Lothian question).

b) parliament cannot enact unchangeable rules

c) European Union: It imposes regulations and laws, which are obligatory for every member

of the EU.

most GB laws have to be subject to EU laws, although GB is the " mother of

parliaments"5 (this is the cause, why GB cannot decide, whether to leave the EU or

not):

imperial measurements (like foot → láb and pound → font) are abolished and a

standard, based on metrical system is "advised" to use

Monarchy: Dignity (respect) or real power? If so, to what extent?

In the UK, the institution of monarchy is symbolic, however, some parliamentary and

public happenings (like the opening of the Parliament) cannot work without it, as GB

has strong historic and traditional roots.

(NB: GB word for the role of a minister is DEPUTY!)

5 Words of the British politician and reformer, John Bright, from a speech at Birmingham on 18 January, 1865